Anyone care to take a shot at why 21500? It's not as if the planners at the Pentagon pulled out their slide rules and their abacuses and in a flurry determined that the reason we were failing in Iraq was because we were precisely 21500 troops short. Why not 22000? Or 21, 137 for pete sake? Maybe it was just George's way of once again saying, "Heh, heh. You thought you knew what I was gonna do. But I decided for an extra 1500 troops, a whopping 1% more. Now who's the stupid one?" (Hint: still you, George).
I didn't think they could make the surge anymore ridiculous than suggesting that 20000 troops was going to help us find the pony amidst the steaming pile of dung that they've turned Iraq into. Yet they did.
I sure hope the magic number of troops wasn't 21542. That would be teh suck.
And the call for sacrifice was a nice touch. How about something more practical - how about a call for increased enlistment in the armed services? That's right, I'm looking at you Jonah Goldberg.